1804327 (Refugee)

1804327 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 2750 (24 June 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Samantha Smith
CASE NUMBER:  1804327
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Malaysia
MEMBER:Adrienne Anderson
DATE:24 June 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 24 June 2024 at 4:18pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Malaysia – race – Brunei ethnicity – religion – Muslim faith – domestic violence victim – children born out of wedlock – applicant was subjected to serious verbal, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her ex-husband –– applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution – relocation is not reasonable – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 424, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 14 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Malaysia, applied for the visa on 15 November 2017.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 May 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Malay and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, they are either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), they may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if they are a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Applicant’s background
The applicant is a [age]-year-old woman from Tawau, Sabah. She is of Brunei ethnicity and Muslim faith. The applicant’s parents reside in [Town 1], Sabah. She has a younger sister who lives in Kuala Lumpur. The applicant is divorced and has three children, aged [age], [age], and [age] who all reside in Kota Kinabulu or nearby. She is in a relationship with an Australian citizen.
The applicant finished high school in Malaysia and has experience working in [retail].
The applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a UD-601 Electronic Travel Authority on [date] August 2017. She applied for a protection visa on 15 November 2017.
The Tribunal accepts the above matters to be true.
Applicant’s claims for protection
Before the Department
In her application for a protection visa, the applicant stated that she left Malaysia due to marriage problems. Her husband was a drunk and a gambler who wanted to sell her to his friends to pay for his gambling debts. He pulled her hair.
The applicant stated that she feared that her husband would find her if she returned to Malaysia. She feared he could do anything to find her because he wants her to pay off his debts. The applicant stated that she was haunted by her past history.
In response to a question asking whether the applicant sought help after experiencing harm, the applicant stated in the form that she had asked her ex-boyfriend [Mr A] for help and that he helped her escape from her husband. The form also stated her ex-boyfriend, who still loves her, was willing to help her until his life was also in danger and that she and her ex-boyfriend decided to run away.
The departmental file indicates that the applicant was not invited to an interview. The delegate made a decision to refuse the visa on 16 February 2024 on the basis that the applicant could avail herself from state protection in relation to the domestic violence she feared and the assistance of NGOs helping vulnerable women on return to Malaysia.
The applicant lodged a review application with the Tribunal on 19 February 2018.
Before the Tribunal
On 10 November 2023, the Tribunal sent a ‘pre-hearing information form’ to the applicant, informing her that her case was being prepared to be given to a Tribunal Member and inviting the applicant to confirm her contact details, hearing requirements and to provide further information about her claims for protection.
On 21 November 2023, the applicant advised the Tribunal that she had engaged a legal representative.
On 31 January 2024 the Tribunal, differently constituted, invited the applicant to a hearing to be held on 13 March 2024. On 22 February 2024 the applicant’s representative requested that the matter be reconstituted to a female member.
The matter was reconstituted to the presiding Member on 7 March 2024.
Pre-hearing submissions
On 23 April 2024, in response to an invitation to hearing, the applicant, with the assistance of her representative, provided the following documents:
a.Statutory declaration of the applicant, dated 17 April 2024;
b.Legal submission, dated 23 April 2024;
c.Collated country of origin information on the topics of women in Malaysia, economic conditions, divorce, marital rape and domestic violence;
d.Psychological Assessment Report by [Ms B], clinical psychologist, of [a clinic], dated 19 March 2024;
e.Screenshot of divorce order by [a] Court at Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, dated 14 December 2023, and translation thereof;
f.Ten-page extract of Transferwise payments to various individuals in Malaysia as of 14 February 2024;
g.Birth certificates relating to the applicant’s three children;
h.Temporary confirmation letter of divorce, dated 1 February 2024, and translation thereof;
i.Letters of support, and translations thereof, from:
i.[a named individual] (undated)
ii.[a named individual] (6 February 2024)
iii.[a named individual] (7 February 2024); and
j.Letters confirming the applicant’s employment in various roles in 1996, 2009, 2014 and 2015.
The claims in the applicant’s statutory declaration can be summarised as follows:
a.The applicant does not have a clear memory of all of the events that have occurred. She tries to forget things and does not talk about them because they are shameful and painful;
b.The applicant was assisted to fill out her protection visa application form by someone from Sabah that the applicant did not know well called [Ms C]. There was incorrect information in the form that the applicant only became aware of when she saw the decision by the Department of Home Affairs. The applicant did not have an ex-boyfriend who helped her to leave Malaysia.
c.The applicant has been very scared of having the hearing and telling anything to the Tribunal because she is scared her ex-husband will find out. Since getting the hearing invite the applicant cannot sleep properly.
d.The applicant’s parents are strict Muslims, and she has always been afraid of her father who is particularly strict.
e.The applicant met her ex-husband [Mr D] when she was at high school, and they dated for a while. [Mr D] was an ethnic Kadazan and Christian. They broke up because he used drugs. When the applicant was [age] years old they met again and started a relationship. They had two children while they were [unmarried].
f.This caused the applicant’s family shame because having sex before marriage is not permitted in Muslim culture. The applicant did not want to marry [Mr D] but felt that she had to as her family threatened to disown her if she did not marry.
g.[Mr D] converted to Islam and they were married in 2000. They lived together in Kota Kinabalu. At first [Mr D] treated the applicant and the children well. He subsequently became verbally and financially abusive.
h.Between 2002 and 2009 the applicant did not work and stayed home looking after the children. This arrangement was according to Malaysian culture which says it is the husband’s role to support the family. In 2009, the applicant went back to work and had to cover all of her and the children’s expenses. [Mr D] only covered the household bills. The applicant became the guarantor of a car loan [Mr D] took out.
i.When the applicant returned to work the abuse became more physical. Work friends of the applicant noticed bruises on her arms. The applicant believed [Mr D] began beating her to try to regain the control that he lost when she went back to work and to punish her for her independence and not being only a wife and mother.
j.The applicant had another child in [year]. She resigned from work in mid-2013 because they could not afford childcare. The abuse got worse. The applicant’s husband began gambling more heavily and forced the applicant to go back to work in 2014. He demanded money from her and threatened to take the children if she did not give him money.
k.[Mr D] hit, kick, slapped, and shoved the applicant. He pulled her hair and beat her with household objects. He tried to strangle her. He raped her throughout their marriage. He was verbally abusive including in a sexual manner. He threatened to hurt the children to make the applicant do things he wanted. He also beat the children. He twice threatened to sell the applicant into prostitution. The applicant believed he would do it as he had friends involved in criminal activity including prostitution.
l.The applicant could not seek help from her family because, after she had children out of wedlock, they had told her that the relationship was her choice and she had to live with the consequences. The applicant sometimes stayed at friends’ houses to get away from [Mr D] but went back because she could not stay long-term and had nowhere else to go.
m.The applicant did not go to the police for help because she thought they would not help her because abuse was something normal in Malaysian marriages. She also feared that it would make her husband punish her more severely. She did not ask anyone else for help because her youngest child was so young, and she feared she would lose custody. She was ashamed to ask for help.
n.She sold jewellery and borrowed money off her friend [Ms E] to pay for her visa and flights. She snuck out in the early morning and took a bus to the airport. When [Mr D] realised she was gone he did not contact the applicant but told her oldest son that he would not let her speak to their youngest child ever again.
o.From Australia, the applicant began sending money to [Mr D] through her sister, daughter and friend so that she would be allowed to talk to her youngest son and so that he would look after the children properly.
p.[Mr D] went to court in December 2023 and divorced the applicant officially. [Mr D] has custody of their youngest son who is[age] years old. Their eldest son also lives with him. Their daughter lives separately.
q.The applicant still sends money to [Mr D] after the divorce. She sends around 600 ringgit per month.
r.The applicant has contact with her mum and sister. Her father has not spoken to her since 2017. The applicant believes he is ashamed of her for running away from her marriage.
s.The applicant is afraid that [Mr D] will harm, rape or kill her on return to Malaysia because she has caused him shame by abandoning the marriage and their children. She escaped his control and made it harder for him to get her money. He would find out if she returned through their children or other relatives. He would be able to use their youngest child to control her.
t.The applicant would struggle to set up a new life as a divorced woman in Sabah or elsewhere in Malaysia. She has health issues, would struggle to find a job, and there is little social assistance. She could not live with her sister in Kuala Lumpur because she is married with children and has no room in her house. The applicant would not be able to live together with her current partner in Malaysia as they are not married and have different religions.
u.The police would not help as they would say it is a family matter. There is no one else who would help her.
At hearing, the applicant gave further evidence in relation to meeting her husband, the course of their relationship and marriage, his treatment of her during the marriage, their contact since the applicant came to Australia and the applicant’s fears of her husband on return to Malaysia.
As the applicant’s protection visa application form named an individual, [Mr A], as the ex-boyfriend who had helped the applicant leave her husband and with whom she had run away, the Tribunal asked the applicant at hearing if she knew [Mr A]. The applicant responded that she did not know anyone of that name. The Tribunal informed the applicant that this was the individual identified in the form as her ex-boyfriend. The applicant stated that she was assisted by someone else named [Ms C] to fill in the application and that [Ms C] added the information about an ex-boyfriend helping her to leave without the applicant knowing until later on.
Post-hearing submissions
On 7 May 2024, the Tribunal received post-hearing submissions from the applicant’s representative on the matter of the applicant’s real chance / real risk on return to Malaysia.
After the hearing, the Tribunal subsequently became aware of adverse information relevant to the review, which it put to the applicant, pursuant to s424A of the Act, in correspondence dated 30 May 2024 and 6 June 2024. The information set out in that correspondence stated that [Mr A] had given the following evidence to the Tribunal: that the applicant had a romantic relationship with him which began in 2000 and which lasted for two years; that they became acquainted again in 2014 at the retail [mall]; that the applicant disclosed the violence she experiencing from her husband and he witnessed bruises on the applicant’s arms; that the applicant asked for his help in going to Australia; and that at the airport the applicant introduced a third individual as her best friend and this third individual accompanied the applicant and [Mr A] to Australia.
He also gave evidence that the applicant had spoken to her ex-husband on at least two occasions since arriving in Australia and that on these occasions he had made threats to harm [Mr A]. The Tribunal had information from departmental files that [Mr A] and the abovementioned third individual had made claims in their protection visa application forms that leveraged the applicant’s claims to experience abuse and violence from her ex-husband.
The Tribunal also had information from departmental and tribunal records indicating that, contrary to her evidence at hearing, the applicant knew [Mr A] prior to arriving in Australia and that she had maintained contact or a relationship of some sort since arriving in Australia. This included that information from departmental movement records that the applicant, [Mr A], and the third individual were each issued with Malaysian passports on the same day, were each granted UD-601 visas allowing entry into Australia on the same day, and that each entered Australia on the same flight on the same day. Departmental and Tribunal records also indicated that the applicant, [Mr A], and the third individual listed a common residential address on their protection visa application forms and a separate common residential address on their applications for review before the Tribunal.
On 20 June 2024, the applicant provided a response to the 424A invitation, containing the following:
a.Statutory declaration of the applicant, dated 18 June 2024, the contents of which are summarised below;
b.Statutory declaration of [Ms E] , dated 19 June 2024, which detailed the assistance she provided to the applicant to leave Malaysia;
c.Map images of an address in New South Wales, which showed that the address listed in the protection visa application form was a café rather than a residential abode;
d.Samples of the applicant’s handwriting, which it was submitted showed that another individual had filled out the protection visa application form;
e.The applicant’s birth certificate; and
f.Legal submissions dated 20 June 2024.
In her statutory declaration, the applicant acknowledged that her evidence to the Tribunal about whether she knew [Mr A] was untruthful. The applicant stated that she met [Mr A] in early 2017 through a messaging application and that they had a sexual relationship prior to leaving Malaysia. He did not assist her to leave Malaysia financially or in the planning stages, but they did apply for their passports and visas together and travel on the same flight. Once in Australia the applicant and [Mr A] worked together and had a romantic relationship until 2019. The applicant stated that she had no knowledge of what was written in anyone else’s protection visa application forms including that her history with her ex-husband was included in anyone else’s form.

She stated that she had concealed their relationship from the Tribunal out of shame and because she was extremely stressed during the hearing. She stated that she was terrified and shamed and having trouble focusing. When she heard [Mr A]’s name mentioned she felt shame because they had had an intimate relationship before leaving Malaysia and in Australia while they were both still married to other people. The applicant could not face admitting to these shameful events when she was already having to talk about shameful matters and because during the hearing she was not capable of thinking logically; she was responding emotionally.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of nationality
The applicant travelled to Australia on an apparently genuine Malaysian passport, a copy of which was provided to the Department and Tribunal. She has consistently stated that she is a citizen of Malaysia, and the Tribunal finds that she is a Malaysian citizen. The Tribunal has assessed her claims against Malaysia as the country of nationality and the receiving country.
Assessment of claims
Having regard to the totality of the evidence before it, including the applicant’s oral and written evidence, the representative’s submissions and supporting documents provided, including those provided in response to the Tribunal’s 424A letter, and the DFAT Country Information report on Malaysia issued on 24 June 2024, the Tribunal makes the following findings with respect to whether the applicant’s fears of persecution on return to Malaysia are well founded.
The Tribunal accepts the medical evidence indicating the applicant is living with mental health issues, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s explanation for the untruthful evidence provided at hearing. In doing so it has considered the Tribunal’s guidelines on gender[1] and credibility[2] and the medical evidence submitted by the applicant.
[1] AAT Migration and Refugee Division, Guidelines on Gender (July 2015) [15].
[2] AAT Migration and Refugee Division, Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility (July 2015).
The applicant’s post-hearing account of feeling too ashamed to disclose the relationship is consistent with a number of statements she made during the hearing to be experiencing shame and to be having difficulty answering questions because the hearing was forcing her to relive her past. It is also consistent with the opinion of clinical psychologist [Ms B] who stated in the psychological assessment report that the applicant appeared to experience shame and that the presence of shame impacted the applicant’s ability to describe her history. Ms [B] indicated that the applicant ‘employed emotional avoidance strategies to manage her distress, which has likely led to some degree of cognitive confusion…’.[3]
[3] Psychological Assessment Report by [Ms B], clinical psychologist, [dated] 19 March 2024.
The applicant’s evidence is also consistent with country information indicating that the institution of marriage is of profound significance to the Malaysian state and to society. Having a child out of wedlock and/or conducting an extra-marital affair transgresses religious and cultural values about refraining from sex outside of marriage.[4] There are reports of parents abandoning or giving up children for adoption because of the strong societal stigma associated with having a sexual relationship before marriage.[5] It has been reported that an average of 100 babies are abandoned nationwide in Malaysia every year.[6]
[4] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Country Information Report Malaysia (24 June 2024) [3.113].
[5] Ainur Nadhrah Roslan et al, ‘Discrimination against an Illegitimate Child According to Law and Society’ (2021) 3 Current Legal Issues 16-21.
[6] Women’s Aid Organisation and Joint Action Group for Gender, The Status of Women’s Human Rights: 24 Years of CEDAW in Malaysia (2019), citing ‘Baby dumping in Malaysia, the unending tragedy – Dr John Teo’ Malay Mail Online (23 January 2017) < >
The Tribunal prefers the applicant’s evidence of her having a more limited relationship with [Mr A] than that which he claims. In considering her evidence in this regard, the Tribunal has given weight to documentary evidence provided by the applicant, namely the birth certificates of her children which indicate that she gave birth to her eldest children in May 1999 and April 2000. The Tribunal considers it unlikely that the applicant began a two-year relationship in 2000 with another man outside of her relationship with [Mr D], given the age of her children and that she had had those children out of wedlock, was facing familial disapproval for those actions and had already placed herself in a precarious position in terms of following laws and societal norms in Malaysia.
The Tribunal also gives more weight to the applicant’s evidence in relation to the matter of contact with her ex-husband since being in Australia. In this consideration, the Tribunal notes the representative’s arguments that if the applicant claimed that she had spoken to her ex-husband directly and that he knew of her extra-marital affair that this would bolster the applicant’s existing claim to protection and give the applicant an additional claim for protection on the basis that extramarital laws contravene Malaysian religious laws. The Tribunal accepts that these factors support the truthfulness of the applicant’s account on these matters.
The Tribunal has also taken into account that the applicant’s untruthfulness relates to matters that are peripheral to her core claim. The details as to how and with whom the applicant came to Australia, and with whom she conducted a personal relationship once in Australia, does not disturb the Tribunal’s overall assessment that the applicant has given a consistent and compelling account of domestic abuse and violence throughout her marriage. This account is also supported by the letters of multiple people who witnessed the applicant’s injuries over a number of years in Malaysia.
The Tribunal therefore accepts that the applicant was subjected to serious verbal, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of her ex-husband over many years, including controlling and isolating behaviours. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr D] restricted the applicant’s access to finances and employment, including controlling the household expenditures and restricting how much the applicant could spend on basic necessities for her children. The Tribunal also accepts that he coerced her into taking on his debts and that he used those debts to intimidate and control her, particularly through his threats to sell the applicant to his friends in order to pay them back.
The Tribunal further accepts that since the applicant has been in Australia, her ex-husband has used his position as sole carer of their minor son and the fact of the coerced debt to continue to control the applicant. She gave evidence at hearing, which the Tribunal accepts, that in late 2023 he divorced the applicant because she stopped sending money to him and made a threat, through their eldest son, to cut off contact to their youngest son if she did not resume payments. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has since resumed sending her ex-husband money through third parties despite their divorce so that she can maintain contact with her youngest child and to ensure that he is properly cared for.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Real chance of serious harm
As set out above, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been subjected to serious domestic violence at the hands of her ex-husband throughout their marriage and that, since the applicant has been in Australia, that he has continued to manipulate and control the applicant through her children.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s home area is Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, where she resided for many years. Her children and parents reside in Kota Kinabalu or in other nearby parts of Sabah. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant’s ex-husband will seek to harm her on return to Kota Kinabalu, where he remains living. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s past experiences of emotional, physical and sexual abuse are indicative of the risk she faces on return.
In making this assessment the Tribunal has considered [Mr D]’s past behaviour which demonstrates a pattern of coercive control and a constellation of forms of abuse including economic, physical, sexual, verbal and emotional abuse. Empirical research demonstrates that where perpetrators engage in multiple forms of abuse, and exhibit controlling behaviour, the risk of repeat and often very serious forms of violence is heightened.[7]
[7] ‘Factors affecting risk’, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA), National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
The applicant’s ex-husband’s past behaviour towards her exhibits a number of factors that are accepted as heightening the risk of severe and escalating abuse in domestic and family violence contexts. This includes that the applicant’s ex-husband attempted to strangle the applicant in the past,[8] that he misuses drugs and alcohol[9] and that he exercised a high level of control over the applicant’s daily activities[10] and finances. In relation to non-fatal strangulation, the National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (the NDFV Bench Book) draws on cross-cultural research in finding that strangulation has been identified as a significant risk factor in intimate partner homicides:
US research indicates that women who had experienced non-fatal strangulation by the perpetrator in the last year were twice as likely to be killed as women who had not. Women who had experienced non-fatal strangulation were also six times more likely to be a victim of attempted murder by their abusive partner… Strangulation has been identified as one of the behaviours that often forms part of a pattern of behaviours underpinning coercive control. A recent Western Australian study highlights the strong association between non-fatal strangulation and intimate partner sexual assault.[11]
[8] ‘Factors affecting risk’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
[9] ‘Factors affecting risk’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
[10] ‘Factors affecting risk’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
[11] ‘Factors affecting risk’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
The applicant and her ex-husband are now divorced and have had no direct contact since the applicant left Malaysia in 2017. However, as set out above, the Tribunal has accepted that the applicant’s ex-husband communicates through the applicant’s oldest son his threats to cut contact with their youngest son if the applicant does not continue to provide money to pay off his debts.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Duluth model which describes the tactics commonly used by domestic abusers.[12] The Duluth Power and Control wheel identifies the use of children as a form of abuse designed to acquire and maintain control in a relationship, and notes that abusers commonly try to make mothers feel guilty about the children, threaten to take them away, and use children to relay messages. Post-separation, other tactics in relation to the children of a relationship include using the children as spies and isolating the children away from the mother.[13] A specific post-separation model focused on economic power and control[14] identifies that perpetrators of domestic violence seek to assert control over ex-partners through refusing to share basic resources for children, refusing to contribute to additional expenses linked to the children, refusing to assist with coerced debt, coercing children to live with him to obtain child support from her, and threatening to take to court if financial payments cease.
[12] Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Power and Control Wheel.
[13] Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Post-Separation Power and Control Wheel.
[14] Jenn Glinski, Post-Separation Economic Power and Control (adaptation of the original Power and Control Wheel approved by the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs).
The NDFV Bench Book, reporting on findings from the New South Wales Domestic Violence Death Review Team’s 2019-2021 Report, indicated that 96.7 per cent of male homicide perpetrators used emotional abuse before the homicide, including verbal denigration and threats regarding child custody; and 31.4 per cent used economic and/or financial violence including controlling use of money, unrealistic expectations for expenditure on necessities, and coerced debt.[15]
[15] ‘Factors affecting risk’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021), citing New South Wales Domestic Violence Death Review Team, Report: 2019-2021 (2021).
The tactics outlined above are consistent with the applicant’s evidence of her husband’s actions since she arrived in Australia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s ex-husband is continuing to assert and/or retain control over her and that his conduct indicates that he is still inflicting abuse on her. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that he has an ongoing interest in the applicant despite their divorce and the passage of several years since they had direct contact and that if she were to return to Malaysia there is a real chance that the range and intensity of abusive tactics would increase.
Given these considerations, and particularly the ongoing interest the applicant’s ex-husband has in her, the Tribunal finds there is a real chance that the applicant’s ex-husband will inflict serious harm on the applicant now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant also has particular vulnerabilities increasing her risk of exposure to harm and/or the gravity of the harm she would experience which include a lack of parental support due to her father’s disapproval of her having had two of her children out of wedlock and her mental health condition.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant has a new partner who is an Australian citizen. When asked at hearing whether he would return to Malaysia with her the applicant indicated that she did not know as their relationship was experiencing some trouble. She stated that even if he did return, because they are unmarried and of different religions they could not live together in Malaysia. The Tribunal finds that even if the applicant’s partner were to return to Malaysia with her that his presence would not mitigate the risk of serious harm that the Tribunal accepts the applicant faces at the hands of her ex-husband.
The harm feared includes threats to her life, deprivation of liberty and significant physical harassment and ill-treatment amounting to serious harm under s 5J(5) of the Act. Given that domestic and family violence is widely acknowledged to disproportionately affect women and girls[16] and to be a manifestation of discrimination against women,[17] the Tribunal is satisfied that the harm feared involves systematic and discriminatory conduct for the purposes of s 5J(4)(c).
[16] ‘Terminology’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
[17] CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No 35 on Gender-Based Violence against Women, Updating General Recommendation No 19, UN Doc CEDAW/C/GC/35 (26 July 2017) 1 [1].
Real chance in all areas of Malaysia
The Tribunal has considered whether the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Malaysia as required by s 5J(1)(c). The applicant’s sister resides in Kuala Lumpur and the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant would face a real chance of persecution at the hands of her husband if she were to relocate to Kuala Lumpur or to another large urban centre. The applicant gave evidence that she feared that her husband would be able to find her through his friends whom she believed to be criminals.
At hearing, the Tribunal asked for more information about these friends or associates of [Mr D]. The applicant stated that she thought her husband’s friends were criminals because they were foreigners working in a wet market where Filipino gangs were known to operate and because she could see that they took drugs. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real possibility that they would be able to discover where the applicant was living if she moved to a different part of Malaysia. The Tribunal has considered DFAT’s advice that Malaysia’s estimated population is 32.9 million, three-quarters of which reside in urban centres[18] in making this assessment.
[18] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia (24 June 2024) [2.6].
However, the Tribunal has also considered other means by which [Mr D] could locate the applicant if she were to move away from her home area of Sabah to Kuala Lumpur or other large city on return to Malaysia. While the applicant gave evidence at hearing that she did not think she would be in a position to formally pursue custody of her youngest son, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that [Mr D] would also be able to locate her throughout Malaysia, including in Kuala Lumpur, through their children. As set out above, the Tribunal accepts that since the applicant left Malaysia [Mr D] has used her children to control her through threatening to block contact to her youngest child and maintaining pressure on the applicant through her oldest children. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that because the applicant would retain contact with her children (and cannot reasonably be expected to cut ties with them) this would mean [Mr D] would know or could discover her whereabouts through the children, particularly the minor child, and their contact with their mother, the applicant.
The Tribunal also accepts that [Mr D], upon knowing her whereabouts, would be motivated to locate and harm the applicant throughout Malaysia. Central to this assessment are the Tribunal’s findings, above, that [Mr D]’s abuse has not stopped while the applicant has been in Australia; it has merely taken a different form and indicates an ongoing interest in the applicant. The Tribunal also finds, on the basis of the country information around gender norms in Malaysia (discussed below) and studies on the causes and dynamics of domestic and family violence,[19] that it is likely that [Mr D] will seek to punish the applicant on return for her actions in leaving him and her children and fleeing to Australia. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the NDFV Bench Book contains information indicating that where women leave an intimate relationship, the former partner may experience an ‘intense loss of control’ and that it is common for perpetrators to continue abuse after separation to attempt to gain or reassert control or to punish the victim for leaving the relationship.[20]
[19] Ibid at [19]: ‘The [CEDAW] Committee regards gender-based violence against women as being rooted in gender-related factors, such as the ideology of men’s entitlement and privilege over women, social norms regarding masculinity, and the need to assert male control or power, enforce gender roles or prevent, discourage or punish what is considered to be unacceptable female behaviour’.
[20] ‘Factors affecting risk’, AIJA, National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
The Tribunal therefore finds that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm at the hands of her ex-husband in all areas of Malaysia.
Refugee nexus
The Tribunal considers that the harm the applicant fears from her ex-husband is for the essential and significant reason of her gender. Domestic and family violence is widely acknowledged to disproportionately affect women and girls[21] and the Tribunal’s gender guidelines acknowledge this form of violence as a form of gender-based violence that may be directed at a person on the basis of gender.[22] National, international, and cross-cultural studies overwhelmingly find that gender inequality is a common underlying reason for domestic and family violence.[23]
[21] ‘Terminology’, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA), National Domestic and Family Violence Bench Book (2021).
[22] AAT Migration and Refugee Division, Guidelines on Gender (July 2015) [8].
[23] See eg Our Watch, Change the Story: A Shared Framework for the Primary Prevention of Violence against Women in Australia (2^nd ed, 2021); M Harway and J O’Neil, What causes men’s violence against women (Sage Publications, 1999); WHO, Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women: Initial Results on Prevalence, Health Outcomes and Women’s Responses (2005); WHO, World Report on Violence and Health (2002).

Research indicates that key drivers of domestic and family violence are gendered and include rigid stereotypes about the roles of women and men in the family and society, beliefs in dominant forms of masculinity and men’s control of decision-making, limits on women’s independent in public and private life and social attitudes condoning violence against women.[24]
[24] Our Watch, Change the Story: A Shared Framework for the Primary Prevention of Violence against Women in Australia (2^nd ed, 2021) 36.
In relation to Malaysia, the CEDAW Committee observes that patriarchal and rigid roles for women and men contribute to the disadvantaged position women hold in Malaysia.[25] As DFAT also reports, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex, and inequality, persist for women and girls in Malaysia’.[26] Information contained in the DFAT report indicates that women’s choices and participation in government, business and civil society are limited because of conservative cultural and religious practices.[27] In 2022, the female labour force participation rate was 53 percent.[28]
[25] CEDAW Committee, Concluding Observations on the Combined Third to Fifth Periodic Reports of Malaysia, UN Doc CEDAW/C/MYS/CP/3-5 (14 March 2018) [19].
[26] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia (24 June 2024) [3.111].
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid, referring to World Bank findings.
Views about the role and place of women in the home and the justifiable use of violence against women are officially sanctioned in Malaysia. Malaysian government rhetoric and policies such as dress codes and other modesty policies[29] reinforce traditional roles that cause women to be vulnerable to gender-based violence.[30] A recent survey of societal attitudes to violence against women in Malaysia also demonstrates a high level of social condonation of domestic and family violence.[31]
[29] Women’s Aid Organisation and Joint Action Group for Gender Equality, The Status of Women’s Human Rights: 24 Years of CEDAW in Malaysia (2019) 147-148.
[30] At 160. See also for example, Yiswarey Palansamy, ‘Ministry’s MCO advice to women: Wear make-up while working at home, speak to spouse in Doraemon voice and giggle coyly’ Malay Mail (31 March 2020).
[31] Women’s Aid Organisation, A Study on Malaysian Public Attitudes and Perceptions towards Violence against Women (2021) 37.
The applicant gave evidence that her husband controlled when she was or was not permitted to work and that he enforced traditional gender roles and norms at home. At hearing, the applicant stated that [Mr D] told the applicant that he was the lead of the family and that the applicant and the children had to follow what he said. Her evidence, which the Tribunal accepts, suggests that he was controlling and subjected her to his authority in the home, indicating that he saw her as his property and felt entitled to control her and to punish her when she violated norms around the proper conduct of women.
In view of the above country information and the pattern and nature of the abuse the applicant experienced, the Tribunal accepts that the essential and significant reason for the harm the applicant fears from her ex-husband is her gender and membership of the particular social group of ‘women’. This group is defined by a shared innate or immutable characteristic[32]– gender – which is not a shared fear of persecution.[33] As such, the Tribunal finds that the applicant fears harm for a s 5J(1)(a) reason.
[32] Section 5L(c)(i) of the Act. Gender has long been recognised as an innate characteristic, see UNHCR, Guidelines on International Protection No 1: Gender-Related Persecution within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, UN Doc HCR/GIP/02/01 (7 May 2002) [30]. For recent acknowledgement in Australia, see Explanatory Memorandum, Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Caseload Legacy) Bill 2014 (Cth) 178 at [1220].
[33] Section 5L(d) of the Act.
Effective protection
A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country: s 5J(2). Section 5LA(2) provides that a state is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if the person can access the protection, and the protection is durable and, in the case of protection by the relevant State, the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
DFAT advises in relation to Malaysia that ‘[l]ocal and international sources consider the [Royal Malaysian Police] to be a professional and effective police force, although the quality of its members’ responses varies depending on levels of training, capacity and engagement in corruption.’[34] In addition to the above reservations in relation to the police’s general effectiveness, country information indicates considerable deficiencies in protection in relation to domestic and family violence. This information is consistent with the applicant’s stated unwillingness to approach the authorities as she believed they would not take any effective action and, given that they would likely not provide assistance, that it would expose her to greater risk from [Mr D].
[34] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia (24 June 2024) [5.5].
While Malaysia’s domestic violence framework has been recently strengthened, with the Domestic Violence (Amendment) Act 2017 expanding the definition of domestic violence and bolstering the scope and range of protection orders for which victim-survivors can apply,[35] the Act does not include rape within marriage in its definition of domestic violence.[36]
[35] At [3.115].
[36] Ibid.
DFAT reports that ‘violence against women and girls remains ‘a significant, albeit underreported, problem’ in Malaysia.[37] In relation to state protection, DFAT reports:
State protection for women and girls experiencing gender-based violence (GBV) is mixed. There are special police units that deal with child abuse and GBV; however, in-country sources told DFAT that these services were inadequate to meet demand. Women who approach police for help may not have access to a female officer. According to in-country sources, the families of women who have experienced GBV often placed pressure on them to drop the matter, either directly or through police officers dealing with the case.
According to in-country sources, police often failed to follow up on reports of GBV. It was not uncommon for a woman who has experienced GBV to be denied a police report, not be informed whether the offender has been charged, and not advised of the next steps in their legal process.[38]
[37] At [3.127]. See also US Department of State, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Malaysia (22 April 2024).
[38] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia (24 June 2024) [3.117]-[3.118].
Other local and international sources confirm this assessment. For example, the US Department of State report for 2023 identifies that ‘NGOs reported that the government did not take action in cases of domestic violence; victims must keep evidence, gather witness testimony, and ensure their own safety’. [39] Overall DFAT assesses that state protection in relation to gender-based violence is ‘often inadequate or ineffective in practice’.[40]
[39] US Department of State, 2023 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Malaysia (22 April 2024). See also Women’s Aid Organisation (WAO), A Study on Malaysian Public Attitudes and Perceptions towards Violence against Women (2021) 104, 105, noting that ‘[b]arriers in accessing justice often arise because the police fail to take serious action or conduct a proper investigation.’ WAO attributed these failures to a lack of training and awareness of domestic violence procedures as well as mistrusting women’s reports of violence.
[40] DFAT, Country Information Report – Malaysia (24 June 2024) [3.125].
The available information indicates a pattern of state unresponsiveness to domestic violence despite the existence of a legislative framework designed to punish such offending. Malaysian authorities turn away victim-survivors of domestic violence and/or take no action on their complaints and as such are unable to effectively respond to domestic violence complaints.[41]
[41] ‘Reasonable effectiveness’ in relation to the police in this context requires that the police respond to a complaint within a reasonable time: Department of Home Affairs, Policy: Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines (re-issued 27 November 2022) 3.14.4.3.
The Tribunal also finds that the applicant would not be able to access protection from the harm she fears because, according to the information above, protection against domestic violence is intermittent, inadequate to meet demand and inconsistent. The Tribunal therefore finds that effective protection measures against domestic violence are not available to the applicant in Malaysia. Therefore, she comes within the definition of a ‘refugee’ set out in s 5H of the Act and satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).
Given the above findings, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to assess the applicant’s other protection claims relating to societal discrimination and economic hardship on the basis of her status as a divorced woman.
CONCLUSIONS
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Section 36(3) of the Act provides that Australia is taken not to have protection obligations in respect of a non-citizen who has not taken all possible steps to avail themselves of a right to enter and reside in a third country. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has any right to enter and reside in any other country and the Tribunal finds that s 36(3) does not apply in the circumstances of this case.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Adrienne Anderson
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 2750

24 June 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Natural Justice